CaptainBeowulf wrote: I don't know... if the navy is able to start building starships, they might be able to put together a solid case to take over the air force. One 90 year old instance of interservice rivalry solved!

Sorry, the Air Force is only ~64 years old, while the Navy was there at the beginning and before! Upstart Air Farce!

CaptainBeowulf wrote: I don't know... if the navy is able to start building starships, they might be able to put together a solid case to take over the air force. One 90 year old instance of interservice rivalry solved!

Sorry, the Air Force is only ~64 years old, while the Navy was there at the beginning and before! Upstart Air Farce!

If the Navy starts putting troops into space, we'd wind up with Space Marines.

In my favorite sci fi novel series Perry Rhodan, the US had the "US Space Forces". Back in the 50ies they imagined that this would be the entity to put the first man on the moon. I still like the sound of it...
"Space Marines" rule too though.

Skipjack wrote:In my favorite sci fi novel series Perry Rhodan, the US had the "US Space Forces". Back in the 50ies they imagined that this would be the entity to put the first man on the moon. I still like the sound of it..."Space Marines" rule too though.

The term "Marines" is just using a foreign language word for "sea" (mar) to label soldiers on the sea. Soldiers in space should thus be termed "astrenes". Astrones? Cosmenes? What is your suggestion?

KitemanSA wrote:The term "Marines" is just using a foreign language word for "sea" (mar) to label soldiers on the sea. Soldiers in space should thus be termed "astrenes". Astrones? Cosmenes? What is your suggestion?

If we had the kind of disruptive technology seemingly necessary to truly militarizing space--meaning something like M-E physics or other propellantless based that made launch and travel as practical as say, air travel--then many of the distinctions between our services could crumble. Enabling transport so in space, would likewise enable it for all the other services. Some spacecraft would "fly" under the ocean as submarines. So it seems to me possible, even likely, we'd end up with a single Defense Service and either call it that, or perhaps adopt a generic use of the term "Army".

"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

KitemanSA wrote:The term "Marines" is just using a foreign language word for "sea" (mar) to label soldiers on the sea. Soldiers in space should thus be termed "astrenes". Astrones? Cosmenes? What is your suggestion?

If we had the kind of disruptive technology seemingly necessary to truly militarizing space--meaning something like M-E physics or other propellantless based that made launch and travel as practical as say, air travel--then many of the distinctions between our services could crumble. Enabling transport so in space, would likewise enable it for all the other services. Some spacecraft would "fly" under the ocean as submarines. So it seems to me possible, even likely, we'd end up with a single Defense Service and either call it that, or perhaps adopt a generic use of the term "Army".

The term "Marines" is just using a foreign language word for "sea" (mar) to label soldiers on the sea. Soldiers in space should thus be termed "astrenes". Astrones? Cosmenes? What is your suggestion?

Yeah, from that POV you are of course right. But then you could not call it a "space navy" either.
I think "Space Force" is the most accurate.
"Major of the US Space Force" has a good ring to it, IMHO, no?

KitemanSA wrote:The term "Marines" is just using a foreign language word for "sea" (mar) to label soldiers on the sea. Soldiers in space should thus be termed "astrenes". Astrones? Cosmenes? What is your suggestion?

If we had the kind of disruptive technology seemingly necessary to truly militarizing space--meaning something like M-E physics or other propellantless based that made launch and travel as practical as say, air travel--then many of the distinctions between our services could crumble. Enabling transport so in space, would likewise enable it for all the other services. Some spacecraft would "fly" under the ocean as submarines. So it seems to me possible, even likely, we'd end up with a single Defense Service and either call it that, or perhaps adopt a generic use of the term "Army".

A limited view of well entrenched cultures and bureacracies. The Air Force is already staking out the fight for manned space control, "Aerospace Force" or whatever. My prediction is that they will lose the fight. They are getting too deeply vested in umanned vehicles, both air breathers and not.
The navy is the only culture that has sustained long endurance manned vehicle operations. There is in fact some argument that the Air Force may have numbered days, given the developments in alternate aviation power projection systems. One point to consider is that the reach of afloat strike is getting really long, and that it doesn't need someone's permission to base itself. This is a real concern. The current saving factor for the airforce is sorty rates from the dirt are higher than afloat. However, getting the dirt infrastructure in place to reach those sorty rates is not simple.

It's worth noting as above that the issue really does come down to "entrenched cultures and bureaucracies." If there is any real reform as a consequence of disruptive technology causing a disruption, seems likely POTUS will make the call and change will come years after called for. Navy will argue they took Project Prometheus from NASA when JIMO died for a reason--they have more experience with mobile reactors than the rest of the planet combined, and USAF will argue that they've been investing in future space studies for ages, have most of the advanced research facilities and have run Space Command since there's been one.

Can't say I think sortie rates will come to the issue especially since that's prone to change depending upon where conflict is and there's no telling where the major conflicts will be before such disruptive tech might come along. The argument from "long endurance manned vehicle operations" is a pretty good one, but there will be so MANY changes in those operations for vehicles in space, and before a change comes it's likely both services will already be there; that it seems to me it won't be as persuasive a point then as it would seem now.

"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

CaptainBeowulf wrote: I don't know... if the navy is able to start building starships, they might be able to put together a solid case to take over the air force. One 90 year old instance of interservice rivalry solved!

Sorry, the Air Force is only ~64 years old, while the Navy was there at the beginning and before! Upstart Air Farce!

Ok. I'll bite. I've stayed away from this forum for a while because, frankly, it had degenerated. Seems to be getting back on track. But this I can't resist. You can guess my alma mater.

The Air Force is a fork of the Army so it can trace its lineage and traditions just as far back (Scouts, Signal Corps, USAAF among other antecedents). That makes it older than the Navy and other Canoe U. types. Quite a few squids even jumped ship to the USAF when the USAAF became fully independent in 1947. The USAF is also by far the the largest space agency on the planet (not NASA). The name change to US Aerospace Force has been proposed for a couple of decades now. It may actually happen someday. We're not giving up a darn thing!

I also share the observation earlier in the thread that EMC2 is slowly characterizing the actual performance of WB8. Like testing an airplane and all the parameters that entails it is a long slow process of characterizing and pushing the actual performance envelope vs. theoretical predictions.

Funding: It isn't like there is money in the bank. That isn't how it works. It has been programmed but allocation and disbursement are separate processes. The issues with funds delivery and the uncertainty engendered by the games in DC do impact EMC2.

CaptainBeowulf wrote:I don't know... if the navy is able to start building starships, they might be able to put together a solid case to take over the air force. One 90 year old instance of interservice rivalry solved!

Makes a good argument for the creation of the United States Space Navy! Maybe they might recall me to active duty...

So, we have seven months to digest the small morsels of information fed to us by EMC2. And that's assuming we get another appetizer after waiting. What we need is more data! Otherwise, it's going to be seven long months of debating the proper name for our new space force.

How can we actively collect information instead of passively waiting? The FOIA requests are a good start. There was also a discussion about the legality of taking pictures from public space around the building. Also interesting.

Here's another idea. How about "leaving" a few neutron detectors nearby. Is there a sidewalk, telephone pole, or signpost close? I think they aren't shielding much right now, so we might get some signal outside the private property boundary. We would need other detectors a block up the road to measure background.

We might learn whether they are testing inert gasses or fuel. Alas, I'm too far away to volunteer myself. Any other ideas for getting data?